Guest Blog: A physician weighs in on Iceland’s effort to protect boys from genital cutting

The oldest running parliament in the world may soon achieve a legislative first—ending circumcision of both girls and boys.

A bill before the Icelandic parliament proposes to expand its law that currently protects girls from genital cutting to also protect boys, including infants.

The measure states that medically unnecessary circumcision of children violates their rights. Female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation, is already illegal in the United States and most European countries. The bill proposes a penalty of up to 6 years in prison for anyone carrying out a circumcision on a minor that is not medically warranted.

While the bill acknowledges that parents have the right to provide to their children religious guidance, it also states that “such a right can never exceed the rights of the child.” The bill says children who wish to be circumcised may do so when they reach an age at which they “understand what is involved in such an action.”

According to Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC), approximately 15% of boys are circumcised worldwide, the vast majority for religious or cultural reasons. Rates in the US—which has one of the highest rates of male circumcision worldwide—have been on the decline; projected estimates based on the most recent historical data would put the American circumcision rate at around 50% today.

Proponents say the Icelandic measure is compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which opposes “all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse,” while Jewish and Muslim groups say it violates their right to carry out religious practices. Meanwhile, US embassies are pressuring Iceland to reject the bill.

Do all children have a right to be protected from genital cutting?

The proposed legislation raises a serious question: When does a child have a basic human right to an intact body, even when that right conflicts with a religious rite? Both the Child-Friendly Faith Project and my organization, Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC), believe that the answer is a categorical always.

If Iceland were to pass the measure, the benefits would be enjoyed by many in that country, and not only those who undergo the procedure. To give but a few examples:

There will be a lot more whole, happier men in the world. Based on the testimonials of countless men who have been circumcised, left intact, and restored their foreskin, the vast majority of individuals who get to keep an important part of their body will go on to live more physically, sexually, and mentally healthy lives than those who were cut.

Babies will be protected from physical and emotional trauma. Children will no longer scream or go into a coma from the excruciating pain of genital mutilation (sometimes performed without anesthesia) and what DOC considers to be sexual assault. Infants will also be spared emotional trauma, as studies have shown evidence of post traumatic stress syndrome some 6 months after the procedure was performed.

The health care system will save millions of dollars a year. According to a 2004 study,neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by more than $800 per patient.

Pediatric urologists will no longer see complications, some of which can be life-threatening. Complications from male genital cutting include hemorrhaging, phimosis, infection, and amputation. However, DOC considers such procedures as having a 100% complication rate, as all victims experience the loss of a valuable part of the body which helps to provide a fully satisfying sexual experience.

More men will be able to benefit from a spiritual or religious experience. Some men who have been genitally cut shun the faith they were born into, because they associate it with trauma, abuse, and the loss of control over their bodies.

Parents and loved ones of men will not suffer heartbreak. Many mothers and fathers regret their decision to circumcise their infants. Some sons blame their mothers for not having protected them. In the same way, more men and women will enjoy healthy relationships, as some cut men maintain a negative attitude toward women.

We applaud the compassionate members of Iceland’s parliament who oppose the practice of genital cutting of all children. Passing this measure will be an important first step to putting an end to one of the most pervasive forms of religious child maltreatment carried out throughout the world.

Dr. George C. Denniston is President of Doctors Opposing Circumcision. He is a former Associate Medical Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Did you experience genital cutting as a child? How has it affected you? How do you think your life might have been different had you been left natural? Please feel free to leave a comment below.

I don't know any victim of religious authority sexual abuse who doesn't share the dilemma that the abuser was "all mighty". . . . Therefore, when an abuser of this status, stature, and authority sexually violates a child or vulnerable adult, it is incomprehensible by the abused. But most devastating is the decapitation from our own spirit or soul that comes with religious authority sexual abuse.

—Dr. Jaime J. Romo

I used to co-facilitate a group for parents who were trying to reunify with their children who had been removed by the state. I remember hearing the story of one mother whose 12-year-old daughter was removed from the home because she had been found walking the streets at 2am along with prostitutes and drug dealers. When her mother was telling the story in the group, she said, “The police brought her to my house and I said, ‘There is nothing I can do about this child. If it is God’s will that He test me with a spiteful child, then so be it. If it is God’s plan that she learn her lessons by getting raped, then I cannot do anything to prevent that from happening. Who am I to interfere with His will?’” In my head, I thought, “Are you serious?” To the group, however, I said, “I see that a lot of you are shaking your heads. What would you like to say to the mother right now?” Most of the group members said she was wrong, that God did not want little girls to get raped. Some members, however, stopped short and said that God’s will was a mysterious thing.

—Jonathan Singer, Host of the Social Work Podcast

I never doubted that my parents loved me. I accepted that the time they had for me was extremely limited. Even now, looking back on their dedication to the Church, I have no doubt that its teachings played an enormous role in their putting their [religious] responsibilities before their family at all times. In many ways, they sacrificed family for what the Church considered to be for the "greater good."

—Jenna Miscavige Hill, niece of David Miscavige, leader of the Church of Scientology

A connected and educated populace . . . is bound to be disabused of poisonous beliefs, such as that members of other races and ethnicities are innately avaricious or perfidious; that economic and military misfortunes are caused by the treachery of ethnic minorities; that women don't mind to be raped; that children must be beaten to be socialized; that people choose to be homosexual as part of a morally degenerate lifestyle; that animals are incapable of feeling pain..

—Steven Pinker

[W]e must acknowledge that our religious communities have not fully upheld their
obligations to protect our children from violence. Through omission, denial and silence,
we have at times tolerated, perpetuated and ignored the reality of violence against
children in homes, families, institutions and communities, and not actively confronted
the suffering that this violence causes. Even as we have not fully lived up to our
responsibilities in this regard, we believe that religious communities must be part
of the solution to eradicating violence against children, and we commit ourselves
to take leadership in our religious communities and the broader society.